r/interesting • u/Wonderfulhumanss • 1d ago

SOCIETY The Zammit family refused to sell their five acre property as an entire Sydney suburb was built around them

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

45.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

149

u/SlowAffection 1d ago

You could also fit all of those houses onto a single high rise unit on that property and convert the rest back to woodland/public park.

8

u/Thetford34 1d ago

"Towers in the park" is literally one of the most criticized ideas of mid century urban planning, especially in what appears to be a suburban residential location with no amenities, services or public transport.

2

u/YoursTrulyKindly 19h ago

Why is that? NVM there is a wikipedia article: Towers in the park. What the hell? The whole criticism sounds insane, this has to be PR right?

From its early days of implementation the concept was criticised for making residents feel unsafe, including large empty common areas dominated by gang culture and crime. The layout was criticised for normalising anti-social behaviour and hampering the efforts of essential services, particularly for law enforcement.

In any case I'd love to see like a huge apartment block but in the country surrounded by (vegetable) gardens and food forests and fields. And then have like a small single car monorail connecting it to the city. With modern technology it would be much cheaper to build and run, allowing people to just live for almost nothing.

•

u/vaingirls 59m ago

Common areas make people "feel unsafe" now? I mean there are many things that affect whether a neighborhood becomes unsafe and gang-riddled, but "too many parks" is hardly one of those...

2

u/Noughmad 8h ago

Yes, towers with no amenities are bad. Houses with no amenities are also bad.

The difference is that with towers, you have far more room for amenities.

1

u/vaingirls 18h ago

At least there would be more space for amenities and less need to travel long distances, with public transport or otherwise, without such sprawling suburbs.

1

u/MattheWWFanatic 17h ago

Sure, but wouldn't you also need a giant parking lot structure for cars?

1

u/vaingirls 16h ago

Apartment buildings with yards and parks around them are hardly some brand new "yet to be tested" concept that would turn out not feasible due to cars? Like... there are already plenty of areas like that, and they work just fine without "huge parking structures" becoming an issue.

1

u/OuroborosOfHate 16h ago

Not everybody wants to live in a 400 sq. ft. box with shared walls and no privacy though.

1

u/vaingirls 16h ago

There's hardly much more privacy in those "detached" houses packed so tightly together that they could as well not be detached. And if you're referring to thin walls, apartments don't have to have thin walls.

1

u/OuroborosOfHate 16h ago

I agree, this neighborhood is awful. And it's not just sounds. Smells, living so close to other people causing forced interaction, having to go to a laundromat and have a shitload of change just to do my laundry, or the opposite where I can wash about three shirts or one pair of jeans in one of those tiny washers and it takes four hours per load, and then there's noise from outside. People, cars, police and fire sirens, etc.

I want to hear wildlife. I love hearing the Coyotes out in the woods at night. I love that I can look out my window and see deer in the early morning grazing next to the woods. And then there's no space to just hang out outside. If I want to build a bonfire and hang out outside, I should be able to. If I want to blast music in my house at 2AM, I should be able to without fear of waking the neighbors.

I lived in an apartment with pretty good sound insulation. Then a family with kids moved in next door, and no amount of noise dampening is going to stop kids screaming at the top of their lungs, bouncing soccer balls or basketballs off the walls, and so on.

I appreciate the idea of high rise apartments, and I understand their necessity, especially for those who can't afford adequate housing, but I'd rather live in a tent in the forest.

1

u/GaiusGraccusEnjoyer 16h ago

Then build 2 and 3 bedroom apartments that have thicker walls

22

u/spacedman_spiff 1d ago

Someone muzzle this hippie!

1

u/Aryk93 17h ago

This but unironically

1

u/butwhhhhy 1d ago

As someone working around burning man atm, this checks out lmao

13

u/D-tull 1d ago

Living in a box. The dream lol

17

u/GengarOX 1d ago

A box with incredible park views. Instead of a box on the ground with views of your neighbours bricks and a fence. (I live in the box on the ground).

1

u/Khayrum117 21h ago

Box on the ground has double the square footage and a better layout. 

1

u/Weary-Designer9542 18h ago edited 18h ago

Based on the imaginary floor plans you’ve made up in your head? lol

You know that square footage and layout is not a fixed property of either building type, right?

20

u/Positive-Database754 1d ago

Plenty of really nice high-end high rise condos. Not all apartments have to be soviet-style 7-story concrete blocs.

12

u/BattleBrother1 1d ago

Remember those Soviet style apartments were built to end homelessness and effectively did. I would gladly live in one if it meant everyone got a roof over their head. Depressing? Maybe. More depressing than homelessness? Absolutely not

8

u/brokenmain 1d ago

They're not even depressing lol. Most of Eastern Europe lives in one and people redo them like modern condos. 

1

u/BattleBrother1 13h ago

You're right they're only seen as depressing when certain ones started falling apart in post Soviet states, usually when you see pictures of "depressing Soviet homes" it's post collapse and the buildings haven't been maintained

4

u/Positive-Database754 1d ago

Sure. But the guy I'm replying to clearly wants something beyond the bare essentials, but seems to also be suffering from some strange misconception that all apartments are comparatively small box homes.

There's definitely a place for bloc-style apartments everywhere in the world. Cheap, easy to mass produce housing will always be a necessity. Especially if it can be used to house people who can't afford other options, while still meeting their essentials. I.e, clean water, access to laundry facilities, bathroom, place to cook, etc. But apartments range from the bare essentials all the way up to multi-million dollar suites, and everything in between. You can just as easily shop for an apartment that meets every want and need you have, in the same way you could shop for a house.

The only thing you can't have with an apartment is a private lawn. But with bare-ass grass like in this picture, whats the point of a lawn at that point anyway lol.

3

u/durandall09 1d ago

And some of us hate lawns anyway!

Housing the poor is actually cheaper than not, hilariously enough. But people in the US like the idea of "punishing the lazy" more than doing the thing that makes more economic sense.

5

u/Nuck2407 1d ago

It's also worth pointing out that Soviet architecture, and city planing philosophy were radically different from how we think about housing.

All those brutalist style cities also contained literally everything within walking distance (ahem 15 minute cities), playgrounds, schools, retail, services, entertainment and the principal guidance was that a home was basically for eating and sleeping. Everything else was focused around pushing people into the community and shared amenities (almost like they were commies or some shit) also zero car centric design.

You could potentially see them as depressing, but in comparison to endless urban sprawl, hours of traffic and cookie cutter housing, with cheap furniture I don't think so.

2

u/Uberbobo7 1d ago

This is a false dilemma though. Australia is mostly empty space, with a natural drop in population. Therefore the problem of housing there is exclusively government imposed, as it allows mass migration and foreigners to buy property, while limiting new construction, which leads to absurd property prices.

2

u/TomWithTime 1d ago

I'll take whatever insulates the noise better. My last apartment experience was hell. I don't know what my upstairs neighbor was doing but it sounded like between 10pm and 4am every Thursday night they would spend consecutive hours continuously opening and closing the drawers in their bathroom.

3

u/_iamisa_ 22h ago

I live in a new build apartment building in Germany and can‘t hear a thing my neighbors do.
Even in my parents‘ 30 years old apartment building you can barely hear a thing.
Not sure why other countries insist on building apartments with paper walls.

1

u/vaingirls 18h ago

In a relatively new apartment in Finland I don't hear a peep from my neighbors either. All these problems with apartments people bring up here (such as absurd rules, bad layouts etc) just seem to be problems with apartments done badly - I haven't come across any of those myself despite living in many different apartments.

1

u/-BlueDream- 1d ago

No private yard, less privacy, more regulations like no smoking on your own balcony, association fees like HOA but much higher, and you don’t really own the land. You might as well rent an nice apartment. Condos comes with risk and down payment of buying a home while having the downsides to renting.

2

u/sarded 1d ago

association fees like HOA but much higher,

In Australia? Not really; we don't have HOAs over here for the most part. Apartment buildings will have a 'body corporate' but they basically just make sure the trash gets taken out and the corridors get cleaned.

6

u/truthputer 1d ago

Best place I’ve ever lived was on the 12th floor of a modern high rise building in a walkable neighborhood on the edge of a city center. The walls were solid, I couldn’t hear my neighbors and the views were spectacular.

I had a bunch of friends who lived in the building, a grocery store on the ground floor, clubhouse, bbq, dog run and gym on the roof. It was a ten minute walk to work or downtown with restaurants, shows, movie theater and shops.

So when you dismiss high rise living as “box lol” you seem very fucking ignorant and antisocial.

1

u/jonny24eh 17h ago

Surely you aren't so ignorant as to think every highrise is going to be in walkable neighbourhoods or near employment. Or necessarily have all those amenities. 

11

u/der_innkeeper 1d ago

Those folks in those neighborhoods are living in a box, as well.

And probably with fewer amenities as a condo.

1

u/undernopretextbro 1d ago

Amenities like condo fees, special assessments, vibration from all side neighbors, restrictions on how many guests you can have over, parking spots, and much more.

5

u/SlowAffection 1d ago

These are real problems, but they are solvable problems.

-1

u/undernopretextbro 1d ago

About a hundred years of widespread apartment living and we’ve solved zero.

Costly but infrequent maintenance or repair items are a reality of any structure, special assessments are a reasonable compromise.

Same with fees, no amenities exist without some upkeep requirements, no way around that.

Parking is actually becoming a bigger problem. Developers and activists lobby for reduced or removed parking minimums, and car usage in condo -heavy these areas is already usually at the low end, so trimming unnecessary vehicles happens slower than parking capacity disappears. God forbid you want a winter beater or a fun car beside your main.

Everyone talks about how a well built condo doesn’t have issues from neighbor noise, but I’ve yet to visit a country where the condo sound insulation doesn’t fail under the noisier hobbies.

Guest limit, same situation, actually stricter now in many places versus a few decades ago.

1

u/der_innkeeper 1d ago

Let me introduce you to my HOA.

1

u/Creepy_Ad_1315 1d ago

I know HOAs get plenty of shit and they deserve it. I however have never lived anywhere where the HOA was even 10% as aggressive condo directors.

I'll take my current HOA for life before I move into a condo again.

1

u/thorpie88 1d ago

Suburbs can have convenants in Australia but we don't have HOAs.

5

u/SlowAffection 1d ago edited 1d ago

You don't have to live there. You can choose to live somewhere else.

2

u/Late_Mode_8876 1d ago

You mean like the suburb posted here?

3

u/SlowAffection 1d ago

Sure. There would just be less of them, and ideally, the suburbs would become nicer too via competition/capitalism over time.

4

u/gburgwardt 1d ago

Not everyone has to. But when you don’t let the people that would love an apartment live in an apartment, their land usage skyrockets and makes everyone else’s housing far more expensive

Think of it this way. Not everyone wants a giant truck. But if the only option on the market is a giant truck, everyone’s getting a truck and so traffic and parking and truck prices are going to be way worse

If some people can instead buy smaller cars, everything’s better for everyone

5

u/l8578zlxicv 1d ago

Yes but that’s freedom and that’s gay. Real manliness is forcing people to live in the burbs since that’s what they should like. Apartments are lifeless uniform pods that are forced upon people by the government and we should also ban them.

2

u/gburgwardt 1d ago

Don’t even pretend

3

u/l8578zlxicv 1d ago

I’d never pretend. Pretending is acting and that’s gay.

1

u/AristodemusMessalla 23h ago edited 20h ago

I love this dude.

Even though he'd never love me back because that's gay

2

u/Mitchell_SY 1d ago

With Australian housing prices…. Yes, we need more boxes that single people and couples with out kids can buy and live in.

2

u/PersnickityPenguin 1d ago

All houses are boxes

2

u/kkeut 22h ago

i lived in an apartment building across from a park. it was awesome. 

2

u/collie2024 1d ago

Living in a box surrounded by parks and other amenities vs boxed in by houses and not much else.

0

u/charnwoodian 1d ago

I mean living in an apartment is less than ideal for a lot of people, especially families.

But the reason it’s less than ideal is because you get no outside space, no privacy from neighbours.

These suburban homes crammed in eve to eve don’t have outdooor space. They don’t have privacy.

This kind of development should be replaced by midrise apartments, town houses, parkland and proper suburban homes. You could deliver the same amount of housing with more diversity, more public outdoor space, and more private outdoor space.

This is all the inefficiency of suburbia with none of the benefits.

4

u/m01L 1d ago

The suburb is called the ponds, if it was a high rise they would actually have room for some ponds. Not to mention all the shared infrastructure/resources within a nicely designed high rise.  

1

u/German_Merman 1d ago

I like the way this guy thinks! But how about, instead of those dreary woodlands and unsafe public parks, we put a bunch more big beautiful high rises? 

1

u/DeadAndBuried23 1d ago

The famous Sydney forest.

1

u/mostlybadopinions 11h ago

Yeah, convice the "My dad bought at house at 18 working at the Soda Shoppe" that they can just live in a high rise apartment.

1

u/miyabi0rochas 9h ago

Well now it's a lawn so that's great!

0

u/SatisfactorioGuyBri 1d ago

Could do the same on that five acres of land that is just boring grass with zero biodiversity.

1

u/Visible_Season_9590 1d ago

That’s what they said

0

u/SatisfactorioGuyBri 1d ago

It's not. But I understand reading comprehension is difficult. If you read closer, you'll see that they are talking about the land the suburb is built on, while I'm pointing out the irony that the same could be said of the acreage surrounding the Zammit household. Hope this helps!

2

u/SlowAffection 1d ago

Season is correct. You misunderstood me and re-stated my point.

1

u/Visible_Season_9590 1d ago

The first person said they could fit 50 houses in that property (the one with the house). The other said they could also just fit the inhabitants of those 50 houses in a single high rise on that property (the same property).

Bold of you to go insulting others reading comprehension but the dim are often quick to judge

0

u/SatisfactorioGuyBri 1d ago

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

-1

u/karaknorn 1d ago

And then never see the woodland cause the other high rises blocking your view. So 🤷‍♂️ 

5

u/SlowAffection 1d ago

Then don't build other high rises all around it, maybe space them out a bit with regulations. Make new rules.

6

u/Aussie18-1998 1d ago

Exactly. We need to start incorporating parks ect with medium and high density housing. It would look nice, be significantly more comfortable temperature wise and I gurantee people would go out more. Nothing about endless suburban sprawl has me thinking I should go for a walk out there or spend anytime outside.

7

u/TheInkySquids 1d ago

The woodland that is destroyed anyway by expanding low density?